Why was Aldi rejected

REASONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THE ALDI PROPOSAL​

The ALDI proposal was finally defeated by the KMC in December 2015 and at the state government level in March 2016.

 

KMC

In the first instance, the proposal was defeated by the KMC. This was a unanimous decision. The reasons given by the KMC for the refusal were: 

 

1. That Council did not support the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra to amend the KLEP 2015 to re-zone the sites to B1 Neighbourhood Centre, amend the floor space ratio to 0.75:1 and amend Schedule 1 – to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops for the following reasons: 

  • The proposal is inconsistent with directions and actions in the Metropolitan Strategy “A Plan for Growing Sydney” which seek to undertake urban renewal and growth within transport corridors and strategic centres in order to create jobs that are closer to home. Specifically Directions 1.7, 2.2, 3.1 and Actions 1.7.1, 2.2.2, and 3.1.1.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with s117 Directions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, specifically:

  • 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

  • 6.3 Site Specific Provisions

  • 7.1 Implementation of “A Plan for Growing Sydney”

 

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030 relating to the revitalisation of local centres and managing the impacts of new development within centres.

 

4. The proposal is inconsistent with the local service role and functions of neighbourhood centres and will conflict with the hierarchy of commercial centres in Ku-ring-gai.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with the strategic directions and development principles within the Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005 (Hill PDA) and Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Subregional Employment Study 2008 (SGS Economics and Planning) which seek to retain of the local service role and function of the existing neighbourhood centres by limiting development capacity and encouraging larger retail within the higher order centres.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, specifically aim 1.2(g), objective of Clause 6.9(1) and the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in that the proposal is of a scale that is inappropriate for a neighbourhood centre, will service a wider catchment than the surrounding residential area and will conflict with the commercial hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai.

 

 

STATE GOVERNMENT 

 

The Planning Department Conclusion on the Aldi Proposal was:

 

1 . It was considered that the proposal put forward by ALDI had insufficient merit and the request for review by the Sydney West Regional Planning Panel was not granted for the following reasons:
 

  • The proposal was inconsistent with the following strategies and studies

    • A plan for Growing Sydney (Direction 3)

    • Councils Community Strategic Plan 2030, to manage the commercial hierarchy of centres

    • Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005, where the scale of the Aldi store is not consistent with the commercial hierarchy of the Eastern Rd centre

    • Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby subregional Employment Study 2008, where the proposal exceeds the range of services projected for the existing Eastern Rd local centre and detracts activity way from higher order commercial centres where the proposal is more suited.

 

 

2. It was inconsistent with the following planning instruments and s117 directions:

 

  • Aims of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015, and does not maintain or encourage the appropriate hierarchy;

  • Zone objectives for Zone B1 Neighbourhood centre, as the proposal will result in a scale of development that is inappropriate in a neighbourhood centre;

  • Section 117 direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport as the proposal will likely increase car usage due to the scale of the commercial development and will service retail needs outside of the local catchment area and;

  • Section 117 Direction 6.3 Site Specific Provisions, as the proposal will allow a particular land use that will impose development standards in addition to those currently in the principal local environment plan cannot be justified as a minor significance

© 2015 by E.R.P (Eastern Road Precinct)